Premium
The usefulness of a minimal urodynamic evaluation and pelvic floor biofeedback in children with chronic voiding dysfunction
Author(s) -
Pfister,
Dacher,
Gaucher,
Liard-Zmuda,
Grise,
Mitrofanoff
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
bju international
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.773
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1464-410X
pISSN - 1464-4096
DOI - 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.00377.x
Subject(s) - medicine , biofeedback , enuresis , pelvic floor , urinary system , urinary incontinence , urology , reflux , surgery , physical therapy , disease
Objective To report our experience of assessing children with chronic voiding dysfunction (>6 months’ duration) using a minimal urodynamic evaluation, and the management of detrusor‐sphincter dyscoordination (DSdc) using pelvic floor biofeedback. Patients and methods From 1994 to 1997, 120 children (mean age 7.5 years) with three predominant and associated symptoms were referred to one urologist; they had nocturnal enuresis (28 children), urge incontinence (42) or urinary tract infection (50). All patients were assessed by urinary culture, renal ultrasonography and a minimal urodynamic evaluation, i.e. urinary flowmetry with sphincter electromyography (EMG) using perineal surface electrodes. If they had urinary tract infection and/or renal dilatation, they underwent voiding cysto‐urethrography. In children with DSdc, urinary training with frequent voiding was instituted initially, with subsequent pelvic floor biofeedback exercises if the improvement was deemed unsatisfactory. Results DSdc was diagnosed in 33 children (28%), none of whom had isolated nocturnal enuresis. Pelvic floor biofeedback was undertaken by 15 children (12 girls and three boys); it was well accepted because it was administered as a computer game. In all affected patients the DSdc resolved on EMG and there was a significant clinical improvement. Vesico‐ureteric reflux was detected in 24 patients, associated with DSdc in 10. The reflux resolved spontaneously on antibiotic prophylaxis in six children and after urinary re‐education in four. Conclusion A minimal urodynamic evaluation seems to be useful in the diagnosis of DSdc which caused urinary tract infection and/or bladder overactivity. The results with pelvic floor biofeedback were excellent in these children.